Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

I don't think so Erol, not unless what was voted for was illegal to begin with. For example, if the majority voted to bring back slavery and it passed, it would not make it legal as it would go against the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Rule of Law and and and!

A group of us all decide we are going to go on a day trip in Cyprus. We agree we will vote on where to go. Options are put forward and discussed. Visiting St Hilarion is one option. Some argue against this option saying the road to St Hilarion is closed but other argue, this is not the case, the road is open, access is simple and easy. We vote. A slim majority chose St Hilarion. We head off. The road is closed. So do we now

1. Insist that democracy demands we still go ahead, parking our cars miles from St Hilarion and take a 6 mile walking track to St Hilarion.
2. Vote again between going somewhere else or taking the 6 mile hike to St Hilarion,

To me the only sensible option is 2. It is also the option that is most compatible with the ideals of democracy.

No one will die as a direct enactment of the Brexit vote once it goes through.

Actually that is not clear. The issue surrounding uninterrupted continued supply of medicines in the event of a no deal exit is uncertain enough that for me the claim 'no one will die if we no deal exit' is not as absolute as you claim. There are others.

Erol, I am saying the same thing in another way.

Taking your above example, the original vote to visit St. Hilarion would equate to the original democratic Brexit vote taken 3 years ago. You cannot undo that original vote no matter what as long as it was legal and if along the way it is found that getting to your destination is going to be much more difficult than originally thought but it can still be done, some in the group may still wants to go even if they have to walk 50 miles. Not everyone needs to go with those who would want to walk another 50 miles, but must respect the ones who does want to walk the 50 miles. There are always the unknowns in any voting, are they not? Democracy is not perfect, but the good news is, anything can be re voted after the first one has been completed. We don't want the same situation like the redo voting in Istanbul recently. That was not Democracy, but dictatorship of the will of one man and the results were far worse for him than first time around. The same can happen if there was a redo Brexit voting if done so prematurely without the first vote not being completed.

Taking the second democratic vote would equate to voting to re enter the EU after the first vote has been satisfied, then one can vote to go somewhere else if they wish!

[erolz66]

Ah, but those in charge of implementing the Leave vote were Remainers. May went behind the back of those negotiating to leave and put Olly Robbins in charge because she was a Remainer.

Had we had somebody in the negotiating team that was committed to leaving I'm sure that a trade deal would have been on the table - after all, it makes sense for both sides.

You can chose to believe this if you like but I do not. If Andrea Leadstrom had not withdrawn from the Tory leadership race and won and been in charge of government during the exit negotiations with the EU I do not believe she would have been able to reach a deal that is materially different than the one May negotiated. If in the face of that she tried to peruse a no deal exit without a specific mandate from the people for such an exit parliament would still have opposed that.

Instead we took are biggest bargaining card (WTO Brexit) off the table and agreed to the Brexit In Name Only Withdrawal Agreement.

Our biggest bargaining chip, after the referendum vote, was actually to threaten to NOT leave the EU unless fair withdrawal terms were agreed but instead to stay as 'reluctant' members. We threw away this bargaining chip and rushed in to triggering article 50 because the leavers feared the fickleness of the 'will of the people' not because they respect it. A bargaining chip of 'if I dont get X I will do something that hurts you but also will hurt me even more' is not and never will be a good bargaining position.

It isn't complicated, everybody agreed that Leave would mean leaving the institutions of the EU including the single market and everything else.

Actually everyone did not agree this. In any case May's deal does set a direction for leaving all EU institutions including the single market yet leavers have rejected and blocked this none the less.

It really isn't (and shouldn't be) 'impossible' to leave the EU...

It is not impossible to leave the EU. It is impossible to leave the EU, yet have a trade deal with the EU that is as good as being in the EU.

Anyway, whatever anybodies views on Leave or Remain were they are somewhat irrelevant now. The genie is out of the bottle and there is simply no way to put it back and return to things as they were before the referendum. Either Brexit happens or there will be a melt down in British politics...

There is already a melt down in British politics.

If you believe in democracy, then why not support having a referendum on a no deal exit ? Just that question alone. Should the UK leave the EU without a deal - yes or no. If there is a majority will for such an exit then job done, crisis over. To me to try and claim that the 2016 referendum already answered this question is about as 'undemocratic' a position as you can take.

[erolz66]

Taking your above example, the original vote to visit St. Hilarion would equate to the original democratic Brexit vote taken 3 years ago. You cannot undo that original vote no matter what as long as it was legal and if along the way it is found that getting to your destination is going to be much more difficult than originally thought but it can still be done, some in the group may still wants to go even if they have to walk 50 miles. Not everyone needs to go with those who would want to walk another 50 miles, but must respect the ones who does want to walk the 50 miles. There are always the unknowns in any voting, are they not? Democracy is not perfect, but the good news is, anything can be re voted after the first one has been completed. We don't want the same situation like the redo voting in Istanbul recently. That was not Democracy, but dictatorship of the will of one man and the results were far worse for him than first time around. The same can happen if there was a redo Brexit voting if done so prematurely without the first vote not being completed.

In terms of the analogy it is not possible for 'some' of the UK to leave and 'some' not. Your argument seems to be that the whole group must first take the 6 mile trek on foot to St Hilarion, even though enough of those that voted for it originally did so on the basis the the road to that destination was clear and open and easy and then having done that then they could vote again on going some where else. That this is what 'democracy' demands. Well of course having made the 6 mile hike, who will then vote to make it back again just to go somewhere else ? I am arguing that given that the 'road' to St Hilarion (Brexit) has proven to be vastly less easy to travel than was supposed when the original vote was taken, it is only sensible to vote again in light of this information and confirm that St Hilarion remains the majority destination of choice or not.

Taking the second democratic vote would equate to voting to re enter the EU after the first vote has been satisfied, then one can vote to go somewhere else if they wish!

The reality is that if we leave we will never be able to rejoin on the same terms we currently have. It is within the bounds of credibility that we would not be able to rejoin even on different terms (having to adopt Euro, having to sign up to schengen, having to give up the rebate etc etc).

[Kikapu]

Erol, just one more point I would like to make again using your example earlier.

If everyone in the group wanted to have a second democratic vote to do something other than what they had voted for in their first democratic vote, then so be it and have the second democratic vote to do something else, no problem. In the Brexit situation, not everyone wants to have a second vote to do something else since half those voted still want to continue on the journey they had voted for the first time. Their Democratic rights needs to be respected, even if only one person left from the 17 million who had voted to leave, that one person left was one of majority in the first vote.

[cyprusgrump]

If you believe in democracy, then why not support having a referendum on a no deal exit ? Just that question alone. Should the UK leave the EU without a deal - yes or no. If there is a majority will for such an exit then job done, crisis over. To me to try and claim that the 2016 referendum already answered this question is about as 'undemocratic' a position as you can take.

Because we had the referendum... And we haven't implemented the result...

Why have another, why bother if the vote will not be implemented...?

Unless of course the vote will be implemented if the result is acceptable to a certain minority...?

In fact you could argue we had three votes... The Referendum, the GE and the European Elections - they all gave a leave majority...

You got anything else...?

[Kikapu]

Taking your above example, the original vote to visit St. Hilarion would equate to the original democratic Brexit vote taken 3 years ago. You cannot undo that original vote no matter what as long as it was legal and if along the way it is found that getting to your destination is going to be much more difficult than originally thought but it can still be done, some in the group may still wants to go even if they have to walk 50 miles. Not everyone needs to go with those who would want to walk another 50 miles, but must respect the ones who does want to walk the 50 miles. There are always the unknowns in any voting, are they not? Democracy is not perfect, but the good news is, anything can be re voted after the first one has been completed. We don't want the same situation like the redo voting in Istanbul recently. That was not Democracy, but dictatorship of the will of one man and the results were far worse for him than first time around. The same can happen if there was a redo Brexit voting if done so prematurely without the first vote not being completed.

In terms of the analogy it is not possible for 'some' of the UK to leave and 'some' not. Your argument seems to be that the whole group must first take the 6 mile trek on foot to St Hilarion, even though enough of those that voted for it originally did so on the basis the the road to that destination was clear and open and easy and then having done that then they could vote again on going some where else. That this is what 'democracy' demands. Well of course having made the 6 mile hike, who will then vote to make it back again just to go somewhere else ? I am arguing that given that the 'road' to St Hilarion (Brexit) has proven to be vastly less easy to travel than was supposed when the original vote was taken, it is only sensible to vote again in light of this information and confirm that St Hilarion remains the majority destination of choice or not.

Taking the second democratic vote would equate to voting to re enter the EU after the first vote has been satisfied, then one can vote to go somewhere else if they wish!

The reality is that if we leave we will never be able to rejoin on the same terms we currently have. It is within the bounds of credibility that we would not be able to rejoin even on different terms (having to adopt Euro, having to sign up to schengen, having to give up the rebate etc etc).

I agree with you, that if the UK wanted to re enter the EU, they would lose a lot. That's the gamble people took when they wanted Brexit . 40 years in the EU for the UK has been an economic success and the country wanted to gamble with it. We don't know yet if the gamble has paid of or not, so it is not worth speculating. I know I enjoy my travels throughout Europe with ease as an EU citizen and would miss that as a British Passport holder which might cause me problems. Thank goodness to the RoC passport should I need it.

[erolz66]

Because we had the referendum... And we haven't implemented the result...

We had a referendum on if we should leave the EU or not. We did not have a referendum on if we should leave the EU without a deal. The simple truth is that there are those who voted to leave on the basis that we could and would agree a deal for exiting and that has proven to not be the case. Voting to leave the EU and voting to leave it without a deal are NOT the same thing. The reason why many extreme leavers insist it is the same thing is because they fear that there is not a majority that favours leaving in such a way and thus they seek to get their minority desire by refusing to accept that these two things are not the same.

Why have another, why bother if the vote will not be implemented...?

If there was a referendum on 'leave with a no deal - yes or no' and 'leave' won such then we would leave in such a way. The problem is as above, when those who want such an exit try and claim that the vote to leave in 2016 was a vote to leave without a deal. Claims that it was are as undemoctatic as you can get.

In fact you could argue we had three votes... The Referendum, the GE and the European Elections - they all gave a leave majority...

and none of them represent a clear democratic mandate that a majority of the British people want to leave the EU without a deal. That you keep trying to make out they do just emphasises my point not undermine it.

You want to leave the EU WITHOUT A DEAL - then show that this is the majority will of the people of the UK and nothing will stop it from happening. Keep claiming that the 2016 vote was a vote to leave the EU WITHOUT A DEAL and all I will continue to see is someone who is looking for ways to get their (probably) minority preference forced on the majority regardless of what they may actually want.

If you believe in a no deal exit and believe in democracy you would support a referendum on a no deal exit - yes or no. If you believe in a no deal exit but want to implement it without a clear mandate that this is what a majority want you do not believe in democracy.

[cyprusgrump]

Because we had the referendum... And we haven't implemented the result...

We had a referendum on if we should leave the EU or not. We did not have a referendum on if we should leave the EU without a deal. The simple truth is that there are those who voted to leave on the basis that we could and would agree a deal for exiting and that has proven to not be the case. Voting to leave the EU and voting to leave it without a deal are NOT the same thing. The reason why many extreme leavers insist it is the same thing is because they fear that there is not a majority that favours leaving in such a way and thus they seek to get their minority desire by refusing to accept that these two things are not the same.

Why have another, why bother if the vote will not be implemented...?

If there was a referendum on 'leave with a no deal - yes or no' and 'leave' won such then we would leave in such a way. The problem is as above, when those who want such an exit try and claim that the vote to leave in 2016 was a vote to leave without a deal. Claims that it was are as undemoctatic as you can get.

In fact you could argue we had three votes... The Referendum, the GE and the European Elections - they all gave a leave majority...

and none of them represent a clear democratic mandate that a majority of the British people want to leave the EU without a deal. That you keep trying to make out they do just emphasises my point not undermine it.

You want to leave the EU WITHOUT A DEAL - then show that this is the majority will of the people of the UK and nothing will stop it from happening. Keep claiming that the 2016 vote was a vote to leave the EU WITHOUT A DEAL and all I will continue to see is someone who is looking for ways to get their (probably) minority preference forced on the majority regardless of what they may actually want.

If you believe in a no deal exit and believe in democracy you would support a referendum on a no deal exit - yes or no. If you believe in a no deal exit but want to implement it without a clear mandate that this is what a majority want you do not believe in democracy.

Nope.

The vote was Leave or Remain.

We voted Leave.

And the government promised to implement what was voted for. And hasn't.

There never was a spectrum of Leaves...

It really is as simple as that.

[miltiades]

Simple as that for ....simpletons
Go on , be brave , tell us why you vote leave !!
You dont like the Krouts or the Frogs and generally all bloody foreigners. Rule Brit.....
What a load of unsophisticated ...plonkers.
How is the pound in your pocket mate, is it worth as much as it did a day before the referendum. Not on your nellie!!
Morons !

[cyprusgrump]

Simple as that for ....simpletons
Go on , be brave , tell us why you vote leave !!
You dont like the Krouts or the Frogs and generally all bloody foreigners. Rule Brit.....
What a load of unsophisticated ...plonkers.
How is the pound in your pocket mate, is it worth as much as it did a day before the referendum. Not on your nellie!!
Morons !

Remainers always try and conflate Europe and the EU whereas Leavers very rarely confuse the two.

Generally speaking, Leavers love Europe and loathe the EU.

But keep on with the insults, I'm sure you will win the 17 million over soon...